The Colorado Universal Background Check Law HB13-1229, Discriminates Against Gays.

So, I've just been reading through the proposed universal background check law here in Colorado.

The law outlines a number of exceptions where a transfer can be legally done without having to go through a background check.

Here's the list of exempted transfers straight from the bill:

3 (b) EXCEPT AS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 18-12-111, A TRANSFER
4 THAT IS A BONA FIDE GIFT BETWEEN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHICH
5 ARE LIMITED TO SPOUSES, PARENTS, CHILDREN, SIBLINGS, GRANDPARENTS,
6 AND GRANDCHILDREN;

So, reading through that list of exemptions, it would be legal for me to transfer a gun to my wife for self protection while I'm out of town on a business trip.

However, if a gay man or lesbian were to transfer a gun to his/her partner under the exact same set of circumstances, it would be an illegal transfer without conducting a background check.

Given that the Democratic party has consistently positioned itself as the champion of LGBT issues, I find it highly instructive that they're willing to draw a line of demarcation that essentially says "gay people don't have the same gun right to self defense as straight people."

No matter where you stand on LGBT political issues, no reasonable person would think that such unequal treatment under the law could possibly be fair or just, and regardless of where you personally stand on this issue, the Colorado Democratic party should be called to account for their clearly discriminatory attitude regarding gays and guns.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Colorado Universal Background Check Law HB13-1229, Discriminates Against Gays." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

sota

February 22, 2013, 11:13 AM

I like it. it's a dirty trick to drive a wedge into the measure. and I'm about fighting dirty now. I need to check the rash of NJ bills that just got pushed out of assembly and see if any of them step on LGBT.

Akita1

February 22, 2013, 11:13 AM

Does Colorado already have anti discrimination legislation at the State level for LGBT?

If so, this may not be legally enforceable as drafted because it violates existing statute, your honor.

sidheshooter

February 22, 2013, 11:17 AM

Justin's got his thinking cap on today. Good job.

Justin

February 22, 2013, 11:24 AM

I like it. it's a dirty trick to drive a wedge into the measure. and I'm about fighting dirty now. I need to check the rash of NJ bills that just got pushed out of assembly and see if any of them step on LGBT.

As one of those socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative wacky libertarian types, I've always been in favor of equal rights.

That said, I decided that it was time for the gloves to come off in this debate the night that both Rhonda Fields and John Morse personally told me they would support throwing me in jail for ua year if I were caught with a prohibited magazine.

Justin's got his thinking cap on today. Good job.

Once in awhile I actually have a decent idea.

Inebriated

February 22, 2013, 11:30 AM

1) Is gay marriage legal and practiced in CO?

2) If so, would the significant other not be referred to as a "spouse", just like a straight couple?

Regardless, awesome job with interpretation. I suck at stuff like that lol.

Justin

February 22, 2013, 11:33 AM

Gay marriage is not legal in Colorado.

Colorado does afford some rights to gay couples via civil unions, but I'm not enough of a legal type to parse whether that would be good enough to allow a transfer to occur under the exemption for spouses.

That said, even if it does, I see no harm in asking why the Democrats didn't include an explicit and clear exemption for gays and lesbians no different than it does for straight couples. After all, if the Democrats are truly the party of protecting minorities, you'd think they would have been a bit more explicit in their willingness to speak up on behalf of a group of people who are consistently discriminated against.

MachIVshooter

February 22, 2013, 11:39 AM

1) Is gay marriage legal and practiced in CO?

The state doesn't prohibit it, but does not recognize it (yet)

2) If so, would the significant other not be referred to as a "spouse", just like a straight couple?

Common law has limitations. This is one of them.

That said, with Ferrandino being speaker of the house, I'm sure we'll see the gay marriage issue move along this year. I'm of the same political persuasion as Justin, so it doesn't bother me.

My beef with minorities in politics is that it seems heterosexual white people just have to prove they're not bigoted by voting for the minority candidate. They frequently end up being elected because they are a minority, not because they are the best candidate. That isn't very equal at all.

I think this country would be much better off if we were not allowed to know the race or sexual orientation of the candidates.

mrvco

February 22, 2013, 11:45 AM

The Senate passed the Civil Union bill. Now it's waiting on the House.

JohnBT

February 22, 2013, 12:09 PM

" exemption for gays and lesbians no different than it does for straight couples"

I think you meant straight married couples. Or does the law list live-in straight couples? I don't know, I haven't read it.

Justin

February 22, 2013, 12:30 PM

Yes, I meant straight married couples.

MachIVshooter

February 22, 2013, 12:30 PM

I think you meant straight married couples. Or does the law list live-in straight couples? I don't know, I haven't read it.

It says "spouse". Usually pretty narrowly defined as a licensed marriage when it comes to the law.

CoRoMo

February 22, 2013, 12:34 PM

It was mentioned in another thread that this law also leaves out cousins, in-laws, foster and step-children.

I've always taken a 'backup' rifle when I elk hunt just in case mine or someone's gun is busted or otherwise unusable. I wouldn't be able to loan my backup rifle to my father in-law or my cousin without them first proving to Hickenlooper that they aren't a felon.

DeepSouth

February 22, 2013, 01:00 PM

Buy your proposal, if I had a buddy and I wanted to give him a gun, and I just gave it to him (illegally) when we got caught we could just say we were "partners" at the time. How could we ever get convicted? No One could PROVE we weren't. That's an obvious problem.

If they want the equal rights they can move to a state where they can get "married"
Then they probably can give the other person the gun as a bonus.

Sorry, but the whole arguement sounds like desperation to me.

Justin

February 22, 2013, 01:13 PM

I'd like this Forum to adhere to guns and related equipment and issues and not to gay rights.

Gay people have just as much of a right to exercise their 2nd Amendment liberties as anyone else.

If a law results in a situation that treats the gun rights of one group of people differently than another, then we need to speak up about it, regardless of whether or not you personally have a problem with what they do behind closed doors.

Buy your proposal, if I had a buddy and I wanted to give him a gun, and I just gave it to him (illegally) when we got caught we could just say we were "partners" at the time. How could we ever get convicted? No One could PROVE we weren't. That's an obvious problem.

All I'm doing is pointing out one way in which this law creates an unequal environment. If it's a problem, then the people who are trying to push it through need to be made aware of it and forced to address it.

CoRoMo

February 22, 2013, 01:19 PM

When this website stops advocating for the 2nd Amendment rights for every American regardless of age, socioeconomic status, background, gender, race, etc., I will not be proud to post here.

When this website only shows 2nd Amendment support for the individuals that most resemble the bulk of it's members, count me out.

nazshooter

February 22, 2013, 01:35 PM

I would think that some racial minorities would have a case against UBCs based on disparate impact. I doubt they'd have to work very hard to show that they are denied by NICS at a higher rate than whites. Not to mention it's impossible for them to get the required photo ID (according to some).

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

ATLDave

February 22, 2013, 02:17 PM

I think it's a very good point, Justin.

Coop45

February 22, 2013, 02:27 PM

Good thinking Justin.

nazshooter

February 22, 2013, 02:35 PM

I'll leave speaking up for them to you Justin and people who think as you do.

Count me out .

No doubt that's how the "buy a shotgun" crowd feels about us. Don't you think we could use their votes?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Arbo

February 22, 2013, 02:42 PM

Good catch. This sort of thing should be blasted out on gay rights sites... show them how the (D)'s stand against them (again)...

sota

February 22, 2013, 02:44 PM

I personally don't care about orentiation or other "factors" related to an individual or group. I just like the fact it's a door left open that a wedge can be driven into. LGBT people can get all in an uproar over the bill because they're excluded. Once they start making noise who knows what other groups will start raising hell. The point is it'll create a distraction around the bill... one that the legislators won't be able to ignore and will have to deal with, and will most likely stimey the bill completely because SOMEONE with some "alternate" lifestyle will be pissed off and will demand reparations. Meanwhile we'll be supporting the people behind the scenes that will work to either kill the bill or stall it for so long that it "expires" for the current legislation session. It's the game the Other Side has played well for years, and it's time we put on out Big Boy pants, get in the mud pit and wrestle it out. It's been clear to me for quite some time that the High Road isn't going to win this day for us. In fact it's what's been killing us. We needed to be following the words of Terry Earwood as relayed to me one day at the track...

Go Ugly Early... it's easier to get her in the truck.

sota

February 22, 2013, 02:45 PM

Water-Man....

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I'll leave that as it is.

CoRoMo

February 22, 2013, 02:48 PM

It would be disappointing to see this thread drawn off point because someone thinks there are certain people groups whose 2nd Amendment rights are not worth protecting.

rbernie

February 22, 2013, 02:58 PM

Every human being is born with the right to effective self-defense, and that ought not be stripped away until such time as a person demonstrates that they cannot be trusted with that right.

The RKBA knows no party affiliations, holds no gender or race preferences, and should not ever care about things like sexual orientation.

The RKBA is the ultimate in liberal thinking and any efforts to define it narrowly should be vigorously opposed.

MachIVshooter

February 22, 2013, 03:33 PM

I'd like this Forum to adhere to guns and related equipment and issues and not to gay rights.

RKBA is not a straight right, a gay right, a white right, a black right or a right otherwise specific to a particular group; It is a HUMAN right. People of all races, ethnicities, religions or sexual orientations are HUMANS (except for politicians; they are something less), and have the right to defend themselves with the most effective means.

joeschmoe

February 22, 2013, 03:46 PM

Any ammo against the anit's is good. Especially when it's thier own brand. That's +2.

GEM

February 22, 2013, 03:50 PM

Great OP - Justin. The violation of rights in the gun panic are stunning.

There is a similar horror in the violation of patient / mental health professional relationships in the NY SAFE act. Also, the University of Iowa is violating FERPA to report students they don't like to the law if they have concealed permits.

Civil rights go out the window if there is a vivid instance.

feedthehogs

February 22, 2013, 04:22 PM

All they will do is amend the ubc if civil unions are made legal.

Since the socially liberal types here are preaching rights for all, what about the rights two life long friends have and who probably know each other better than most married couples not being able to gift a gun without a ubc?

Don't get distracted by a squirrel running across the road.
The whole damn thing needs to be tossed out.

C.F. Plinker

February 22, 2013, 04:28 PM

The section Justin quoted above pertains to BONA-FIDE GIFTS; however, the scenerio that was described implies that the transfer would not be permanent and thus would not meet this section of the bill.

Perhaps another method of complying (if you want to comply) would be to use this section.

(d) A TRANSFER THAT IS TEMPORARY AND OCCURS WHILE IN THE
12 HOME OF THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE IF:
13 (I) THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM
14 POSSESSING FIREARMS; AND
15 (II) THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT
16 POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH
17 OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE;

18 (e) THE TRANSFER IS A TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF POSSESSION
19 WITHOUT TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR A TITLE TO OWNERSHIP, WHICH
20 TRANSFER TAKES PLACE:
21 (I) AT A SHOOTING RANGE LOCATED IN OR ON PREMISES OWNED OR
22 OCCUPIED BY A DULY INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ORGANIZED FOR
23 CONSERVATION PURPOSES OR TO FOSTER PROFICIENCY IN FIREARMS;
24 (II) AT A TARGET FIREARM SHOOTING COMPETITION UNDER THE
25 AUSPICES OF, OR APPROVED BY, A STATE AGENCY OR A NONPROFIT
26 ORGANIZATION; OR
27 (III) WHILE HUNTING, FISHING, TARGET SHOOTING, OR TRAPPING
1 IF:
2 (A) THE HUNTING, FISHING, TARGET SHOOTING, OR TRAPPING IS
3 LEGAL IN ALL PLACES WHERE THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE POSSESSES
4 THE FIREARM; AND
5 (B) THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE HOLDS ANY LICENSE OR PERMIT
6 THAT IS REQUIRED FOR SUCH HUNTING, FISHING, TARGET SHOOTING, OR
7 TRAPPING; OR

These sections do not require any defined relationship between the individuals and, because the transfer it temporary, would seemingly allow the firearm to be transferred back without the need for a background check.

However, these sections would not give any reason for striking down the law as proposed. Carry On.

ATLDave

February 22, 2013, 04:28 PM

feedthehogs, of course those of us "preaching rights for all" don't like the bill. This is about one specific argument about the bill, not a compherensive list of ALL the things wrong with it.

One of the most common sources of bad laws is a failure of immagination on the part of lawmakers to envision a terribly unfair scenario that will certainly arise if the law goes through. If you can present such a scenario to a lawmaker, sometimes you can get them to see things differently. But the scenario usually has to be striking, beyond what they consciously intended, and likely. Two good friends swapping guns? Those who like gun control already think that shouldn't be happening. But two partners who live together running afoul of the law because their particular partnership is not legally recognized? You might get some people with that.

Everyone who already thinks the whole thing is bad doesn't need convincing. New arguments, or new presentations of older arguments, are needed to get people to change their minds. There's no point preaching to the choir.

joeschmoe

February 22, 2013, 04:30 PM

All they will do is amend the ubc if civil unions are made legal.

Since the socially liberal types here are preaching rights for all, what about the rights two life long friends have and who probably know each other better than most married couples not being able to gift a gun without a ubc?

Don't get distracted by a squirrel running across the road.
The whole damn thing needs to be tossed out.
The idea is to get them to trip on thier own tail trying to cross the road. Have thier own base of supporters tell them to stop. They won't listen to us, but they will listen to thier own base.

JShirley

February 22, 2013, 04:35 PM

THR is about bringing lawful gun owners together, regardless of religion, political affiliation, sex, or orientation. That is why we don't allow posts that attack any of those things, because we focus on what brings us together, not the many things we can choose to let divide us.

Any ammunition that assists in letting us stop bad legislation is good. Any loosening of restrictions on lawful gun owners is good.

John

hso

February 22, 2013, 04:35 PM

The point is that there is a weakness in the law that can be exploited. Any weakness should be exploited to kill this poisonous legislation.

If you do or don't like a particular group it is best to remember that we're not interested in the group itself, but in the blind spot that the Antis left for us to exploit.

Don't let you feelings interfere with using your intellect to fight these pieces of legislation.

browneu

February 22, 2013, 04:52 PM

The point is brilliant. It should be exploited showing the hypocrisy of the left.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

joeschmoe

February 22, 2013, 05:01 PM

The section Justin quoted above pertains to BONA-FIDE GIFTS; however, the scenerio that was described implies that the transfer would not be permanent and thus would not meet this section of the bill.

...

These sections do not require any defined relationship between the individuals and, because the transfer it temporary, would seemingly allow the firearm to be transferred back without the need for a background check.

However, these sections would not give any reason for striking down the law as proposed. Carry On.
One of the biggest complaints from gays who want marriage laws is they cannot pass property when one dies or becomes incapacitated/incompetent. If the owner has a stroke, the partner can be kicked out of the house they have shared for decades and has no legal claim on the others property. The state usually takes everything. Even if there is a will stating otherwise. Eventually if property is passed taxes must be paid as if you bought it for market value.

I know of several gay couples who are in this situation (one is terminally ill and will probably become incompetent before she dies).

1911Tuner

February 22, 2013, 05:08 PM

As a matter of law, unmarried cohabiting straight couples are subject to the same guidelines.

F'rinstance, I've lived with SWMBO for nearly 17 years. Whenever I'm away, she has full access to a loaded gun or three.

Seeing that:

A. She isn't a prohibited person and
B. It's not technically a transfer of ownership, and
B. There are no minor children afoot...

Should an unwanted caller force his way in, and she shot him with one of my guns...I really don't see the letter of the law being strictly enforced. In fact, in my county of residence, it's unlikely that the matter would even come up.

C.F. Plinker

February 22, 2013, 05:23 PM

As a matter of law, unmarried cohabiting straight couples are subject to the same guidelines.

F'rinstance, I've lived with SWMBO for nearly 17 years. Whenever I'm away, she has full access to a loaded gun or three.

Seeing that:

A. She isn't a prohibited person and
B. It's not technically a transfer of ownership, and
B. There are no minor children afoot...

Should an unwanted caller force his way in, and she shot him with one of my guns...I really don't see the letter of the law being strictly enforced. In fact, in my county of residence, it's unlikely that the matter would even come up.
The proposed Colorado law would require a background check on any transfer of possession which does not meet one of the 6 exceptions not just on transfers of ownership. This can be a big difference.

4 18-12-112. Private firearms transfers - background check
5 required - penalty. (1) EXCEPT AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (6) OF THIS
6 SECTION, BEFORE ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT A LICENSED GUN DEALER, AS
7 DEFINED IN SECTION 12-26.1-106 (6), C.R.S., TRANSFERS OR ATTEMPTS TO
8 TRANSFER POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, HE OR SHE SHALL:

The inclusion of temporary transfers of possession where transfer of title is not involved within some of the bills exceptions shows that the bill applies to more that transfers involving a change of ownership.

Inebriated

February 22, 2013, 09:00 PM

That said, even if it does, I see no harm in asking why the Democrats didn't include an explicit and clear exemption for gays and lesbians no different than it does for straight couples. After all, if the Democrats are truly the party of protecting minorities, you'd think they would have been a bit more explicit in their willingness to speak up on behalf of a group of people who are consistently discriminated against.
You would think that, for sure. But... I'm growing increasingly positive that the general structure of the democratic party is not to help people, it's to essentially force their dependence on the government. I do not believe that is recognized by many democrats, though.

EDIT - More on topic, though... Is anyone trying to bring attention to this in a more organized fashion?

Deanimator

February 23, 2013, 10:15 AM

There is absolutely NOTHING in the world wrong with using somebody's own supposed ideology against him.

Socially, I'm very liberal and won't HESITATE to point out the hypocrisy of "liberals" who are willing to pitch every OTHER belief they might claim to have in order to create a government monopoly on the means of armed force.

Harping on this, as well as the galloping misogyny of the anti-gun side is part of a winning strategy.

beatledog7

February 23, 2013, 10:35 AM

So, if I want to transfer a gun to a woman in CO and avoid the BC, all I have to do is marry her?

What a deal!

Creature

February 23, 2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:
I'd like this Forum to adhere to guns and related equipment and issues and not to gay rights.
Justin wrote: Gay people have just as much of a right to exercise their 2nd Amendment liberties as anyone else.

How is it that a moderator and another member are both quoting someone's statement...that does not appear anywhere in this thread?

natman

February 23, 2013, 10:46 AM

However, if a gay man or lesbian were to transfer a gun to his/her partner under the exact same set of circumstances, it would be an illegal transfer without conducting a background check.

You don't often read arguments in favor of gay marriage in gun forums, but I respect your candor in making one.

PedalBiker

February 23, 2013, 10:59 AM

It is also a fact that this gun bill is going to force rural residents to DRIVE a lot of extra miles just to find an FFL to do the transfer. This wastes gas, places lives at risk and harms the environment.

I live in town and bike a lot, however, gun laws discriminate against cyclists as well. There are exemptions for firearms in cars, but not for one in my backpack on my bike. So even for urban residents the background check bill will require more driving.

Torian

February 23, 2013, 11:01 AM

So, I've just been reading through the proposed universal background check law here in Colorado.

The law outlines a number of exceptions where a transfer can be legally done without having to go through a background check.

Here's the list of exempted transfers straight from the bill:

So, reading through that list of exemptions, it would be legal for me to transfer a gun to my wife for self protection while I'm out of town on a business trip.

However, if a gay man or lesbian were to transfer a gun to his/her partner under the exact same set of circumstances, it would be an illegal transfer without conducting a background check.

Given that the Democratic party has consistently positioned itself as the champion of LGBT issues, I find it highly instructive that they're willing to draw a line of demarcation that essentially says "gay people don't have the same gun right to self defense as straight people."

No matter where you stand on LGBT political issues, no reasonable person would think that such unequal treatment under the law could possibly be fair or just, and regardless of where you personally stand on this issue, the Colorado Democratic party should be called to account for their clearly discriminatory attitude regarding gays and guns.
Nice catch.

Fred_G

February 23, 2013, 01:39 PM

Interesting thread. I think we (2A supporters) need to learn to use liberals tactics against them. Also, using liberal tactics to get people to oppose a bill does not have to be legally correct, think how often liberals want something passed 'for the children', or if you oppose an environmental bill, you somehow 'want dirty air and water'.

BullfrogKen

February 23, 2013, 03:19 PM

I'm all for pointing out instances where pointy-headed politicians who think they can write perfect laws trip over their own idealogy in their haste to do it.

Colorado may eventually pass a gay marriage act. So, how's this law supposed to work when the US gov't won't recognize it? This will eventually work it's way into the Federal courts to be settled once and all, at which point this law fails to account for those couples.

Go get' em, Justin.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Colorado Universal Background Check Law HB13-1229, Discriminates Against Gays." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!